The ED's investigative powers under PMLA are extensive. The ED can summon any person for examination — and failure to appear or to answer questions truthfully is itself an offence. The ED can search premises and seize documents and assets without a warrant where it has reason to believe that evidence of money laundering may be found. It can provisionally attach property believed to be proceeds of crime for up to 180 days — an attachment that is confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and becomes permanent on conviction. And it can arrest any person it has reason to believe has committed an offence under PMLA — with the arrested person being produced before a Special Court, not a Magistrate.
The Supreme Court's judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) upheld the constitutional validity of the ED's broad powers — including the power to arrest without registering an FIR (the ED registers an ECIR, which is not an FIR and need not be shared with the accused), the reverse burden of proof on the accused at trial, and the twin bail conditions in Section 45. Understanding these powers — and their limits — is the foundation of every PMLA defence strategy. GP has built its PMLA practice around a deep knowledge of both the statute's provisions and the case law that has tested their limits.
Advising on and preparing clients for examination under Section 50 PMLA — where the ED can summon any person and compel answers under oath. Unlike a police statement under BNSS, a statement under Section 50 is admissible as evidence in the PMLA trial. GP advises on what can and cannot be said without self-incrimination, prepares the client for the examination, and attends with the client at the ED office — ensuring that the Section 50 examination does not itself become the building block of a prosecution.
Representation from the moment of ED arrest — appearing at the first production before the Special Court, arguing against remand to ED custody, and filing the bail application under Section 45 PMLA at the earliest opportunity. GP's Section 45 bail applications focus on three lines of attack: the weakness of the predicate offence case, the tenuous link between the predicate offence and the alleged "proceeds of crime," and the accused's individual role in transactions that the ED characterises as laundering. Bail refused by the Special Court is challenged immediately before the High Court, and then before the Supreme Court if necessary.
Challenging provisional attachment orders before the Adjudicating Authority and, on appeal, before the Appellate Tribunal for Money Laundering. GP challenges attachments on two principal grounds: (1) the attached property is not "proceeds of crime" — that is, there is no direct nexus between the attached asset and the alleged scheduled offence; and (2) the ED has failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 5 — including the requirement to have reasons to believe that the property represents proceeds of crime and that attachment is necessary to prevent its being concealed, transferred, or dealt with in a manner prejudicial to proceedings.
The PMLA prosecution stands or falls on the predicate offence. If the accused is acquitted of the scheduled offence, the PMLA prosecution typically collapses — there are no proceeds of crime if no crime has been committed. GP defends the predicate offence proceedings in parallel with the PMLA defence — coordinating the strategy across both sets of proceedings to ensure that the positions taken in one are consistent with and supportive of the defence in the other. This integrated approach is the single most effective PMLA defence strategy available.
Full defence at the PMLA trial before the Special Court — including the challenge to the ED's complaint, discharge applications before charge framing, cross-examination of ED witnesses, and the accused's evidence rebutting the reverse burden of proof. Under Section 24 PMLA, once the prosecution establishes that the accused is in possession of proceeds of crime, the burden shifts to the accused to prove innocence. GP prepares a complete rebuttal through financial forensics, expert witnesses, and documentary evidence — demonstrating the lawful origin of every asset the ED characterises as tainted.
High Court writ petitions under Article 226 challenging the legality of the ED's actions — including challenges to the validity of search and seizure operations, challenges to the non-supply of the ECIR, challenges to the ED's jurisdiction where the predicate offence does not fall within the PMLA schedule, and challenges to the ED's conduct of the Section 50 examination. Following Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, the scope for writ challenges has narrowed — but GP identifies and pursues every legitimate avenue where the ED has exceeded its statutory authority or violated the accused's constitutional rights.
The Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) is the ED's equivalent of an FIR — but unlike an FIR, the accused has no right to a copy of the ECIR. The Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary confirmed this position. The accused therefore does not know the full extent of the ED's investigation until the Prosecution Complaint (the PMLA equivalent of the chargesheet) is filed. GP manages this information asymmetry by piecing together the ED's case from the attachment orders, remand applications, and Section 50 examination questions — building the defence picture before the complaint is filed.
Section 24 PMLA reverses the usual burden of proof at trial — once the prosecution establishes that the property is "involved in money laundering," the burden shifts to the accused to prove it is not proceeds of crime. This reversal has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The practical effect is that the accused must be able to demonstrate the legitimate origin of every challenged asset with documentary evidence — bank records, income tax returns, balance sheets, and source documents going back years.
Where an accused person in PMLA custody suffers from a serious illness that cannot be adequately treated in custody, the courts have granted bail on medical grounds — even under the stringent Section 45 twin conditions — on humanitarian grounds and the right to health under Article 21. GP has obtained health-based bail in PMLA matters where the medical evidence clearly established that continued custody posed a serious risk to the accused's life. Medical bail applications require comprehensive and credible medical documentation, and GP works with independent medical experts to build the record.
PMLA defence requires mastery of a statute that operates entirely differently from the ordinary criminal law — different arrest procedure, different bail standard, different trial procedure, different burden of proof, different appellate structure. A criminal defence lawyer who handles PMLA as an occasional instruction is not the same as one who handles it as a core practice. GP's PMLA team works with the statute daily — keeping current with the Supreme Court's developing PMLA jurisprudence and the practical realities of ED investigations and Special Court proceedings.
PMLA defence is as much a financial exercise as a legal one. The defence of the reverse burden under Section 24 — demonstrating that the attached assets are not proceeds of crime — requires a complete forensic reconstruction of the accused's financial history. GP's forensic accounting team works alongside the criminal defence advocates — tracing the origin of every challenged asset, identifying the legitimate source of every fund flow, and building the financial narrative that the legal team presents at trial.
A PMLA matter that begins with a Section 50 summons may end before the Supreme Court — and every stage of that journey is strategically connected to every other. The way the Section 50 examination is handled affects the bail application; the bail application affects the trial strategy; the trial strategy affects the appeal. GP manages the PMLA matter as a single end-to-end engagement — the same team, the same strategy, every step of the way.
Defended a Delhi real estate developer whose residential apartment, commercial office, and investment portfolio — valued at ₹28 crore — were provisionally attached by the ED following an ECIR registered on the basis of an alleged customs duty evasion (the predicate offence). GP challenged the attachment before the Adjudicating Authority, deploying forensic accountancy evidence demonstrating that the three attached assets had been acquired years before the period of the alleged customs violation, funded entirely from disclosed income and bank loans, with no traceable connection to the alleged customs proceeds. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the attachment. GP appealed to the Appellate Tribunal for Money Laundering — which set aside the attachment in full, holding that the ED had failed to establish the required nexus between the attached property and the proceeds of the alleged offence.
Defended the CFO of a listed FMCG company arrested by the ED under PMLA following a customs classification dispute (predicate offence). The Special Court refused bail on two occasions under Section 45. Between the second refusal and the High Court hearing, the customs department accepted compounding of the predicate offence against the company. GP filed a fresh bail application before the Bombay High Court — arguing that compounding of the predicate fundamentally undermined the "reasonable grounds to believe not guilty" limb of Section 45. The Bombay HC granted bail, holding that compounding — while not technically an acquittal — materially reduced the ED's ability to establish the predicate on which the PMLA case rested.
Conducted the full PMLA trial defence for a Mumbai textile businessman accused of laundering proceeds from an alleged bank fraud (predicate under BNS S.316, IPC S.409). The ED's prosecution complaint alleged that ₹18 crore in assets — including two properties, a share portfolio, and fixed deposits — represented proceeds of the alleged fraud. GP's forensic accounting team reconstructed 12 years of the client's financial history — income tax returns, audited balance sheets, bank statements, property purchase documents, and source-of-funds analyses — demonstrating that every challenged asset had been acquired from disclosed income, loan proceeds, and legitimate business earnings. The Special Court acquitted the client after a four-year trial. The ED's appeal was dismissed by the Bombay High Court.
The practice maintains a 24-hour emergency response capability for ED arrest situations — appearing at the first production before the Special Court and filing the bail application at the earliest opportunity. Every PMLA engagement begins with an immediate assessment of the predicate offence position, the attachment exposure, and the bail prospects — giving the client a clear picture of the landscape before any procedural steps are taken.
GP's white collar and anti-money laundering practice is integrated with the firm's forensic accounting and fraud investigation team — providing the financial analysis capabilities that PMLA defence at trial demands.
A plain-language guide to what the 2022 Supreme Court judgment upheld, what it left open, and the defence arguments that remain viable after the ruling.
Read Guide →How to demonstrate that attached property is not proceeds of crime — the documentary evidence, forensic methodology, and legal arguments that have succeeded before the Appellate Tribunal.
Read Insight →If you have received an ED summons, your property has been provisionally attached, or you or your client has been arrested by the ED — contact GP immediately. Every hour matters.
Strictly confidential. All PMLA matters handled with absolute discretion.